Aerobic capacity and upper limb strength are reduced in women diagnosed with breast cancer: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: What are typical values of physical function for women diagnosed with breast cancer and how do these compare to normative data? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Women diagnosed with breast cancer who were before, during or after treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Physical function was divided into three categories: aerobic capacity, upper and lower extremity muscular fitness, and mobility. Measures of aerobic capacity included field tests (6-minute walk test, 12-minute walk tests, Rockport 1-mile test, and 2-km walk time) and submaximal/maximal exercise tests on a treadmill or cycle ergometer. Measures of upper and lower extremity muscular fitness included grip strength, one repetition maximum (bench, chest or leg press), muscle endurance tests, and chair stands. The only measure of mobility was the Timed Up and Go test. RESULTS: Of the 1978 studies identified, 85 were eligible for inclusion. Wide ranges of values were reported, reflecting the range of ages, disease severity, treatment type and time since treatment of participants. Aerobic fitness values were generally below average, although 6-minute walk time was closer to population norms. Upper and lower extremity strength was lower than population norms for women who were currently receiving cancer treatment. Lower extremity strength was above population norms for women who had completed treatment. CONCLUSION: Aerobic capacity and upper extremity strength in women diagnosed with breast cancer are generally lower than population norms. Assessment of values for lower extremity strength is less conclusive. As more research is published, expected values for sub-groups by age, treatment, and co-morbidities should be developed. [Neil-Sztramko SE, Kirkham AA, Hung SH, Niksirat N, Nishikawa K Campbell KL (2014) Aerobic capacity and upper limb strength are reduced in women diagnosed with breast cancer: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy60: 189-200].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".